How much compensation do redundancy claims award at an employment tribunal?

Across 4,949 UK redundancy tribunal cases with a recorded remedy since 2017, the median total award was £6,319 and the largest was £658,333.

What percentage of redundancy claims succeed at an employment tribunal?

Of 5,384 redundancy claims decided on the merits by UK tribunals, 80% were upheld.

How many UK redundancy employment tribunal cases are there?

Tribunal Watch has indexed 11,866 redundancy employment tribunal judgments published on gov.uk since 2017.

Loading…

Top

Redundancy compensation & tribunal success rate — UK data (page 43) | Tribunal Watch

Claim pillar

Redundancy employment tribunal cases — UK data 2017–present

Name: Redundancy UK employment tribunal statistics
Creator: Tribunal Watch
License: https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3/

Tribunal Watch has indexed 11,866 UK employment tribunal cases involving redundancy claims, published on gov.uk since 2017. Where compensation was recorded, the median award was £6,319 (the largest £658,333) across 4,949 cases. Tribunals upheld 80% of the 5,384 decided redundancy claims. These cases name 8,871 distinct employers as respondents.

Total cases: 11,866
Median award: £6,319
Claims upheld: 80%
Largest single award: £658,333
Distinct employers: 8,871
England & Wales: 10,296
Scotland: 1,570

Compensation in redundancy cases

4,949 cases with a recorded award

Median: £6,319
Mean: £10,352
25th percentile: £2,843
75th percentile: £12,135
90th percentile: £20,607
Largest: £658,333

Figures are the total award recorded across cases that include a redundancy claim and a published remedy — 4,949 of 11,866 redundancy cases. Many tribunal judgments decide liability only, with compensation set at a later hearing, so they are not counted here. A judgment combining several claim types contributes its whole award. Nothing here is legal advice or a prediction of any individual outcome.

Outcomes of redundancy claims

6,676 adjudicated claims

Outcome	Claims	Share
Upheld	4,331	65%
Dismissed	1,053	16%
Struck out	576	9%
Withdrawn	540	8%
Other	130	2%
Settled	46	1%

Counting only claims a tribunal decided on the merits (upheld or dismissed), 80% of redundancy claims were upheld — 4,331 of 5,384. Settled and withdrawn claims are excluded from that rate. Outcomes are recorded per claim, so a judgment can uphold one claim and dismiss another.

Redundancy cases per year

2017–2026

Year	Cases	Trend
2017	112
2018	212
2019	1,374
2020	1,990
2021	1,681
2022	1,651
2023	1,603
2024	1,474
2025	1,321
2026	448

Largest redundancy awards

Top 8 by total award

Case ref.	Decided	Claimant	Primary respondent	Total award
1600759/2023	16 October 2023	Mr M David and others (see Appendix 1)	DRB Group Limited	£658,333
2303760/2022	19 April 2023	Mr P Smith & Others	GX Technology EAME Limited (in liquidation)	£492,728
3304188/2022	28 July 2023	Cyril Gregory	Petro Trace Limited	£340,213
2414266/2021	7 March 2022	Mrs N Denmade and others (see schedule)	Trinity Brands UK Ltd	£219,664
3303037/2023	28 March 2024	Miss K Lynch	Marshall Eaton Holdings Limited	£216,294
2404024/2017	28 September 2018	L Roberts	Logo Design Grp Ltd	£210,212
3300972/2021	5 April 2023	Mr M Crowley (1) Mr E Witney (2) Mr S Rolls (3)	Sterling Thermal Technology Ltd	£203,851
1404124/2019	18 February 2020	Miss L Power and 29 others	Pitney Fabrication Co. Ltd	£201,107

Top employers — redundancy cases

20 ranked by case count

#	Employer	Cases
01	Secretary of State for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy	500
02	Secretary of State for Business & Trade	266
03	Qube Qualifications and Development Limited (in Creditors Voluntary Liquidation)	101
04	Harvard Technology Ltd (In Administration)	89
05	Thomas Cook Group UK Travel Ltd (in compulsory liquidation)	79
06	Testerworld Limited	73
07	Thomas Cook	47
08	Clarity Products Limited	42
09	Debenhams Retail Limited (in Administration)	37
10	Total Home Delivery Limited	33
11	STA Travel Limited (in liquidation)	29
12	HS Realisations Limited (Formerly Hewden Stuart Ltd)	27
13	Sonetik UK Ltd (In voluntary liquidation)

All redundancy cases

11,866 cases · page 43 of 238 · chronological

Case ref.	Decided	Claimant	Primary respondent	Jurisdiction	Total award
2400484/2024	4 October 2024	1. Mr R King 2. Ms Stuart-Yildirim	Florida Direct Limited	England & Wales	£15,964
3312996/2023	4 October 2024	Miss Emma Bunn	Ms Polly Aitken trading as Lingwood Kindergarten	England & Wales	£4,988
8001084/2024	4 October 2024	Mrs C Livingstone	Old Vale Bar	Scotland	—
1406283/2023	4 October 2024	Mr M Dwyer	U-Fit & We-Fit Ltd	England & Wales	£16,693
6007678/2024	4 October 2024	Mr A Egri	Incredible Vegan Ltd	England & Wales	£2,278
2400442/2024	4 October 2024	1. Mr S McHale 2. Miss S Rees 3. Miss L Connolly	Jemgold Hotels Limited	England & Wales	—
2400485/2024	4 October 2024	Ms Z Healy	Florida Direct Limited	England & Wales	—
2601060/2024	3 October 2024	A Pawlowski

Methodology

Cases on this page are identified by first-pass extraction against the locked §4.4 claim-type taxonomy — a judgment enters the redundancy caseload if redundancyis tagged in its classification output. A single judgment frequently combines multiple claim types, so the same case may appear on more than one claim-type page. Per-claim outcomes come from the second-pass (LLM-assisted) extraction and are recorded for each claim a judgment decides; the success rate counts only claims a tribunal decided on the merits (upheld or dismissed). Award figures are taken from the remedy section of each judgment where present; cases without a quantified award — because the tribunal only determined liability, or because the remedy hearing is pending — are excluded from the compensation figures. Regional splits follow the tribunal's jurisdiction as recorded on gov.uk. Nothing on this page is legal advice or a prediction of any outcome; for any specific matter the gov.uk judgment PDF linked from each case page is the authoritative source.

3313571/2023

2 October 2024

Mr K Zaman, Counsel For the Respondent 1: No attendance (not notified of the hearing) For the Respondent 2: No attendance JUDGMENT 1. The claimant’s various claims are adjourned to be heard on 7 November 2024 before a judge alone via CVP. REASONS 1. The claimant was employed by the first respondent as a Senior Digital Designer from 8 May 2017 to 6 July 2023 when she was dismissed. That dismissal took place in the context of the first respondent being about to enter into a Creditors’ Voluntary Liquidation. The claimant was employed by the second respondent as a Studio Lead and Senior Designer from 21 August 2023. There appears to be some connection between the first and second respondents in that at least one senior employee and director of the first respondent is also a senior employee and director of the second respondent. 2. On 30 November 2023 the claimant commenced the present claim against both respondents. Her primary case is that there was a relevant transfer of an economic entity between eh first and second respondents with the effect that (pursuant to the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006) the claimant’s employment and various associated rights and liabilities transferred to the second respondent. Case Number: 3313571/2023 2 3. The claimant makes claims for a basic award for automatic unfair dismissal, a declaration and financial compensation consequent upon a failure to provide appropriate information, wages between 6 July and 21 August and some outstanding holiday pay. 4. It is the claimant’s contention that if there was no transfer then she is entitled to those sums from the first respondent and, given that it is in the process of voluntary liquidation, that those sums should be paid by the Insolvency Service. A request to the Insolvency Service was made, but the claim was rejected on the basis that the Insolvency Service considered that there had been a relevant TUPE transfer. 5. When I saw the tribunal file it became clear to me that the first respondent had not been served with a notification of this hearing. Furthermore, I had reservations as to whether the second respondent had been properly served, given that whilst the notification was sent to its registered address, it was addressed to a firm of accountants (Adams Moore Ltd) who status in respect of these proceedings is unclear to me. It appears that they had been advising the directors of the first respondent prior to the liquidation commencing and there is some suggestion that they may have continue dot advise those directors, possibly also in their capacities as directors of the second respondent. However, there is nothing on the tribunal file to indicate that that is the case, albeit that the claimant’s solicitors were able to tell me of a conversation with the representative of the employment tribunal who had indicated to them that they believed that that firm was advising both the first and second respondents. No note or record of any such conversation appears on the tribunal file. 6. Given that no notice had been served by the tribunal on the first respondent, whether by sending it to the liquidators (as ought to have been done) or otherwise, I could not give any judgment against that entity. I was also concerned that the second respondent might say that it had not properly been notified of this hearing. 7. In these circumstances Mr Zaman took instructions and applied to have this matter adjourned so that proper service could be effected. I note that neither respondent has submitted an ET3, but both are entitled to notification of this hearing and to take such part in it as I, as the Judge, might allow (see

Cleo Marketing Ltd 7 Victoria Road Tamworth Staffordshire B79 7HS 9.3 Martin Crook: Martin Crook Adams Moore Ltd 7 Victoria Road Tamworth Staffordshire B79 7HS

England & Wales

—